The Stoel Rives Appellate Law Blog
The Supreme Court announced five opinions today. We will post further analysis of the most interesting of these cases in later blog posts.
Futureselect Portfolio Mgmt., Inc. v. Tremont Grp. Holdings, Inc. : The Court reversed a trial court dismissal of a lawsuit by a Washington entity against an out of state defendant related to…
Justice Johnson wrote for a unanimous court in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hall to remind the Washington bar of a few fine points of ethics:
Do not draft estate documents that name yourself executor and trustee unless the client has explicilty and knowingly consented to it. (Even then, it’s a bad idea.)
If you…
The doctrine of comity allows a domestic court to recognize and enforce the judgment of a foreign court even though it is under no legal obligation to do so. Comity is generally understood to be a voluntary courtesy, but in Washington it now appears to be something more like a rule of law.
In In…
In State v. Russell, a unanimous Supreme Court found that police officers who stop and frisk people under the “Terry stop” principle can only look for weapons and not fish for evidence of other crimes. The Court also ruled that an individual does not give consent to a police search by “appear[ing] not to have a problem” with it – instead the officer must ensure the consent is voluntary and that the individual knows he or she can refuse to give consent.
Here, a cop stopped and frisked an individual, found a small box that could not contain a gun and opened it anyway. The cop found a syringe filled with methamphetamine. The Supreme Court held that the syringe could not be admitted into evidence against the defendant because a Terry stop only allows protective frisks for weapons and does not justify opening containers to see what is inside them. The Supreme Court also rejected the alternative argument that the defendant consented to the search by appearing not to have a problem with the frisk and observed that the State failed to establish that the officer gave Miranda warnings or otherwise advised him that he could refuse consent.
Police officers in Washington have been put on notice that they do not have a free hand in seeking evidence through stop and frisk tactics. They must limit themselves to performing a safety search for weapons unless they get either true consent for a more intrusive search or a warrant.Continue Reading Washington Supreme Court Limits “Stop and Frisk”
In Expedia, Inc. v. Steadfast Ins. Co., the Washington Supreme Court unanimously held that insurers that promise to defend an insured party from lawsuits must pay for the cost of defense as soon as the duty is triggered, regardless of whether the insurer has a defense that might ultimately relieve it of this duty. An insured party is therefore entitled to payment by the insurance company of the cost of defending lawsuits from the time the duty to defend is triggered until a court declares that the insurance company has no duty to defend.
Continue Reading In Washington, Insurers Must Defend Until They Are Excused
The Washington Supreme Court filed three opinions before the long Independence Day weekend. All three garnered nine signatures for the majority with nary a dissent in sight.
Continue Reading United They Stand: Washington’s Supremes Celebrate Independence Day with a Trio of Unanimous Decisions
Article by Manmeet Dhami, Summer Associate and law student at University of Washington School of Law
[Learn more about Stoel Rives’ summer program here]
According to a recent Washington Supreme Court decision, providing false information to a Sound Transit fare enforcement officer (FEO) is not punishable under Washington law. Typically, making a false or misleading statement to a public servant is considered a misdemeanor. However, in State of Washington v. K.L.B., the Washington Supreme Court found that individuals cannot be held liable for false statements made to an FEO because FEOs are not public servants.
Continue Reading Lying Isn’t Nice, But It’s Not Necessarily a Crime
By Sook Kim
In Gomez v. Sauerwein, the Washington Supreme Court held that a medical negligence claim for misdiagnosis and a failure to obtain informed consent claim are mutually exclusive. Justice Steven Gonzalez, joined by three other justices, concurred in the result but disagreed with the majority’s reasoning on this issue, arguing while alternative theories were inappropriate under the facts of this case, the claims are not always mutually exclusive.Continue Reading Wash. S. Ct.: Medical Misdiagnosis Claims Separate and Distinct from Informed Consent Claims
By Hunter Ferguson and Manmeet Dhami
When considering a parenting plan, trial courts start from the premise that it is ordinarily in a child’s best interest to alter the existing pattern of parent-child interactions only to the extent necessary because of the parents’ changed relationship from physical, mental, or emotional harm. But, as is the case with most general rules and standards, there are exceptions. Under section .191(3) of the Parenting Act of 1987, trial courts may impose limitations on parental contact to guard against “adverse effects” if they find the presence of certain enumerated factors or under a catchall provision, subsection (g). In In re Marriage of Chandola, the Washington Supreme Court clarified that in order to impose limitations under the catchall provision, a trial court must find the presence of factors similar in severity to those enumerated in the statute – i.e., factors that present a relatively severe risk of physical, mental, or emotional harm to a child.Continue Reading Wash. S. Ct. Clarifies Standard for Imposing Limitations on Parenting Plans
In Eubanks v. Brown, the Washington Supreme Court decided 8-1 that a prosecutor’s job is to prosecute crimes. If a prosecutor sexually harasses an assistant, he’s not acting within his or her job description.
Continue Reading Reminder to Public Officials: Harassment’s Not in the Job Description
